Buy The Three Musketeers (LQ) Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: ActionAdventureRoma
Starring: Til Schweiger, Logan Lerman, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Matthew MacFadyen, Christian Oliver, Mads Mikkelsen
Director(s): Paul W.S. Anderson
Country: Germany, USA, UK
Year: 2011
Available Quality: DivX, iPod
IMDB Rating: 6 out of 10 (14422 votes)
The hot-headed young DArtagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (iPod) | Resolution: 480x208 px | Total Size: 361 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (DivX) | Resolution: 720x304 px | Total Size: 1453 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Three Musketeers (LQ)". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
slyfieldse (24 May 2012)
outrageous, cheesy Pirates..Caribbean wannabe sorta FUN
CHEESY, tongue-in-cheek remake of the Alexander Dumas classic withoutlandish modern twists thrown in. ALERT?? For instance, don't thinkmen wore the pompadour quiff in 17th century.:) Obvious screened inscenery. only watched it for Macfadyen who, along with Orlando bloom,isn't even listed as starring. Ageless treasures of mankind are totallyDESTROYED in seconds in the name of cool - NOT COOL! NOT FUNNY. Actingwas EXCELLENT sword fights too, except for a couple of tired moves. oneof many designed to copy the success of pirates..Caribbean. Still thecasting was EXCELLENT: MacFadyen wonderful. Jovanovich doing what shedoes. bloom being pretty. Gabriella Wilde is BEAUTIFUL lady in waitingbut star Lerman and she lacks chemistry.Some over-the-top that keepsanyone who knows the story from walking away. As a comic farce of theclassic novel, okay movie.
debbie-iancu (24 May 2012)
So unbelievable we were laughing half the time
I actually like Milla and thought Orlando Bloom's character amusing butI agree with other reviewers that almost nothing in this movie makessense. It seems that so much effort was exhausted on creating theeffects that none was left for acting - no one even tried to soundfrench, periodical accuracy (what happened to the gritty filthy Franceof the 17th century?) or physics - do you know how much those dressesweighed and the restriction they caused? a woman had difficulty walkingnot to mention flying through the air dodging bullets. Also when theairship is plummeting down towards the ground (together with my regardfor the movie) D'Artagnan and Rochefort are standing in the hullcompletely steady, when it should be rocking like crazy and they shouldbe stuck to the walls screaming..The dialogue was appalling - like every cliché' from every Hollywoodmovie rolled up into a big ball. The end was the worst.. I don't agree with other reviewers who liked the portrayal ofD'Artagnan by Logan Lerman. I found the cocky/smug expression on hisface the whole movie just annoying, i was wishing someone would shoothim... again. A few other displays of WTF: They are on the bridge in a lightningstorm, but there is no weather.. not even dripping or blowing aroundthem. And these master minds of planning, who get back the diamonds so"brilliantly" but can't foresee that when Rochefort has the diamonds onboard he will immediately fire upon them. Come on??! One minute beforeD'Artagnan refuses to shoot at Rochfort's airship so as not to hurtConstance, but once he is aboard the same airship and Constance is safehis fellow musketeers have no problem firing on the ship with himthere. All for one and one for all, anyone? Not worth the money.. especially not worth the cost of 3D.
TheLittleSongbird (23 May 2012)
Entertaining if heavily flawed
To be honest, I was expecting The Three Musketeers to be much worsethan it turned out. Is it flawed? Yes, and in a very heavy way. But isit that bad? Personally I don't think so. While there were much bettermovies this year such as Drive and Tree of Life, there have been muchworse such as Spy Kids 4 and Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.Starting with The Three Musketeers' problems, it isunder-characterised, particularly with Lerman's D'Artagnan. For me, themost interesting character was Richelieu. The writing is often verycheesy and anachronistic, with Lerman and Bloom getting the worst ofit, though there are some nice snappy moments too with McFadyen,Mikelssen and Waltz.The story is a wonderful one, and is well paced generally, however Iwould have liked more with D'Artagnan and the three musketeers.However,I do think the film looks fantastic. The costumes are beautiful, theBavarian scenery is stunning and the cinematography is appropriatelyskillful. The music is suitably rousing and energetic, the directionwas decent and the swordplay and stunts are fun and terrifically paced.In regards to the acting, it was generally good. Logan Lerman ishandsome and charming if rather flat, likewise with Freddie Fox.Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich didn't blow me over I admit, howeverthey were both much better than anticipated.When I first heard of Bloom as Buckingham to me it screamed ofdisaster, that said he was much less painful than I thought, hisdialogue was bad but the performance was okay relying less on theall-looks gimmick. Jovovich is attractive and suitably cunning though Iwould've liked more of a haunting quality to Milady.On the other hand, Matthew MacFadyen is perhaps the coolest Athos I'veseen and James Corden is suitably oafish as Planchet. Luke Evans andRay Stevenson give good support as Aramis and Porthos. The two bestactors were Christoph Waltz, who is pitch perfect(as usual) asRichelieu, and Mads Mikelssen as a sinister Rochefort.All in all, an entertaining if flawed movie. Those looking for afaithful adaptation, even with the references, will be disappointed,those willing to look past this and take it for what it is(like me)will enjoy it. Of the adaptations of the Dumas masterpiece, look nofurther than the 1973 Richard Lester film for the definitive version,with that said this was good enough to pass an hour and three quartersor so. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Van Roberts (23 May 2012)
Lots of Buckle But Little Swash
"Resident Evil" producer & director Paul W.S. Anderson should stick tomaking either sci-fi horror chillers, like "Event Horizon" and "TheSoldier," or brawny actioneers, like "Mortal Combat," and "Death Race."These genres thrive on larger-than-life characters performingheavy-handed histrionics in over-the-top situations. Gadgets andgimmicks proliferate in both genres, typically with the combatantsdefeating their enemy because they display greater competence withtheir weapons. Now, Anderson has ventured outside of his usualbailiwick with "The Three Musketeers." The immortal Alexander Dumasnovel emphasized court intrigue, chivalrous romance, and colorfulswordplay in a 17th century setting. Indeed, "The Three Musketeers" hasbeen a favorite of filmmakers since the French produced the firstcinematic version in 1903. Since that long lost classic appeared over acentury ago, more than 30 remakes and various sequels have followed.Hollywood conjured up two unusual adaptations. Anderson and scenaristsAlex Litvak and Andrew Davies have tried to update this vintage talefor contemporary audiences by adding anachronistic elements which areoften found in steampunk science fiction and fantasy. Instead, hadAnderson imitated the latest literary trend that Quirk Books launchedwith Seth Grahame-Smith in 2009 in his parody of Jane Austin's "Prideand Prejudice" entitled "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies," he mighthave fared better. "The Three Musketeers" boasts an opening gambit which is half JamesBond and half "Resident Evil." Athos (Matthew Macfadyen of "RobinHood"), Porthos (Ray Stevenson of "Punisher: War Games"), and Aramis(Luke Evans of "Blitz") with Athos' girlfriend Milady de Winter (MillaJovovich of "Ultraviolet") are in Venice, Italy, to steal Leonardo daVinci's plans for an airborne galleon. They must swipe three keys toopen the vault where the blueprints are kept. After they pull off thisimpossible stunt, the treacherous Milady double-crosses them. She handsthe plans over to an Englishman, the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloomof "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy"), and they leave our heroes passedout of the floor. A year afterward, young D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman of"The Butterfly Effect") rides into Paris to join the elite King'sguard. During the journey, he encounters the evil Captain Rochefort(Mads Mikkelsen of "Casino Royale"), the chief of Cardinal Richelieu'sguards. Rochefort insults D'Artagnan's horse Buttercup, and our herochallenges the best swordsman in Europe to a duel. Instead, Rochefortsurprises him and whips out pistols. D'Artagnan avoids death narrowlybecause the gun misfires. Afterward, Milady intercedes for D'Artagnansince he is so handsome. In Paris, D'Artagnan renews his pursuit of Rochefort. While he ischasing him, D'Artagnan interferes with Athos, Porthos, and Aramisseparately, and he challenges each to a duel. Eventually, when theMusketeers meet D'Artagnan, forty of Richelieu's guards interrupt them.Athos, Porthos, and Aramis join D'Artagnan, and they whip the guards.Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz of "Inglourious Basterds") insistsyoung King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) discipline them for fighting hisguards. Louis XIII sends them on their way with little more than areprimand. Later, to humiliate Buckingham and force Louis XIII toexecute his wife, Queen Anne (Juno Temple) for cuckolding him withBuckingham, Richelieu has Milady steal diamond necklace and hide thechoker in the Tower of London. D'Artagnan and the Musketeers mustretrieve the diamonds before a party where the Cardinal hopes to exposethe Queen. Richelieu hopes that the incident will spark a war withEngland, and he can usurp Louis.The best "Musketeer" movies have been frivolous, light-heartedswashbucklers with nimble swordplay and charismatic characters.Although Anderson's take on the chivalrous Dumas tale qualifies asambitious with impressive costumes and production values, the overalltreatment is nevertheless uneven and ultimately uninspired. Andersonlacks the light touch and helms this period outing with a heavy hand.In a misguided effort to revitalize this venerable yarn of derring-dofor contemporary audiences, he has resorted to outlandish gadgets, suchas scuba gear, complex vaults, and flying galleons. Basically, Andersonseems to be imitating swashbucklers like Terry Gilliam's "TheAdventures of Baron Munchausen" (1988) and Mathew Vaughn's "Stardust"(2007). Meantime, he has forsaken the essence of any good "Musketeer"movie, the camaraderie among Athos, Aramis, Porthos, and D'Artagnan.Mind you, Anderson's "Three Musketeers" doesn't qualify as a completefiasco. This $90-million international production is a triumph ofPierre-Yves Gayraud's extravagant costumes and Paul DenhamAusterberry's sophisticated production designs. Although Andersonfilmed this epic on location in Germany, the sprawling CastleHerrenchiemsee in Bavaria stands in splendidly for the actual Palace ofVersailles. If showy costumes, production values, and a handsome castconstituted a good movie, then this "Three Musketeers" would qualify asa stunner. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Sadly, nothingabout the use of 3-D distinguishes "Rambo" lenser Glen MacPherson'simpeccable widescreen cinematography. Meantime, Anderson must have beentugged in two directions by his writers who were as different as Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Alex Litvak, who penned the horror opus"Predators," and Andrew Davies, who wrote the two chick flick "BrigitJones" romancers, seem to alternate between a diamond heist and swordfighting without any time out for romantic interludes. The chiefdifferences between this "Three Musketeers" and previous remakes is theuse of airships to accelerate the momentum of the plot. Whereas ourheroes galloped on horseback in the earlier epics, Anderson and hisscenarists rely on gimmicks to speed up the action. Anderson doesn'thave a clue about how to wield comedy and all the jokes and pranks fallflat. Matters aren't helped that the actors cast as the leads arehopelessly overshadowed by a stronger supporting cast, principallyMilla Jovovich, Orlando Bloom, Mads Mikkelsen, and Oscar-winnerChristoph Waltz who are better known to audiences. "The ThreeMusketeers" never generates the zest that either the silent DouglasFairbanks' classic or the famous Richard Lester version with MichaelYork, Richard Chamberlain, and Oliver Reed achieved. Altogether, "TheThree Musketeers" buckles because it doesN'T swash!
DICK STEEL (22 May 2012)
A Nutshell Review: The Three Musketeers
There are more than 20 films made on Alexandre Dumas' The ThreeMusketeers novel, so the challenge here for any filmmaker seeking tomake a film adaptation is to come up with something new, but yetstaying true to the spirit of what the One For All and All For Oneepitomizes. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, the man responsible for anumber of Resident Evil films and other remakes such as Death Race,it's quite obvious he'll film this in 3D given that he took theResident Evil franchise in that direction with a steampunkish look andfeel, but little else.The Three Musketeers tells the story of four musketeers, with a certainD'Artagnan (Logan Lerman of Percy Jackson fame) looking to join theFrench King's elite force only to find that they've been disbanded bythe evil Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) who has the diabolicalplan of getting England and France to go to war, and stepping in tousurp the throne. D'Aartagnan soon makes an enemy out of CaptainRochefort (Mads Mikkelsen) and bumping into the trio of Athos (MatthewMacfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), thetitular musketeers now into semi-retirement, and soon find themselvesbanding together once again to answer the call of saving the king LouisXIII (Freddie Fox) and his queen Anne (Juno Temple).That's the gist of the usual tale, where in Paul W.S. Anderson's casehad envisioned the musketeers to be sort of an early rendition ofsecret agents out to do the country's bidding, with a license to kill.The opening character introductory sequence brings us to Venice, Italy,where the trio, together with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) embarkon a secret quest to retrieve construction plans of an airship, onlyfor the lady to betray them all, and working as a double agent underRichelieu, and the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). The screenplayby Alex Litvak and Andrew Davies broadly follows certain key elementsfrom Dumas' original story, such as the involvement of the Queen's ladyin waiting (Gabriella Wilde), the plot to kick-start a war and the manypolitical double-crossing, but took a lot of liberties pertaining tohow events unfolded that it is The Three Musketeers in name only, andcould have been entitled The Adventures of Milady de Winter for thepivotal role the character plays throughout the film, and having justabout the coolest of all fight scenes. Oh yes I forgot Milla is MrsAnderson.Much has been said about the mixed accents spoken through the film, andit's true, if one's a stickler for accent authenticity, one will notfind that in this movie, where everyone just about speaks in their ownnatural accented English. Everyone practically hammed up their roles,with Orlando Bloom turning in a really flamboyant performance as thevillainous Duke complete with metrosexual tendencies, while ChristophWaltz, the current Hollywood It guy to play chief villains in films,slept walk his way in his role - you can tell he's already tired fromit all - complete with a very bad hairdo. Worst, the heroes aren't thatheroic and lacked certain believable charisma given that they aresupposed to be One for All, being at times too smart even forthemselves, and got overshadowed fairly quickly by the more illustriouscast standing on the side of evil.Since it's a Paul W.S. Anderson film, expect the usual slow-motiontechnique being overused in just about every major set action brawl,with green screen environments being obviously used to craft and designunbelievably complex fights that almost always try to be very cool andstylish. It does take the mickey out of a good old straightforwardswordfight, especially since guns are the de facto weapon of choiceinstead. When the battle airships got introduced, you know this is notyour father's The Three Musketeers, but very much something that couldhave existed in a parallel universe instead. I wonder if AlexandreDumas himself would be entertained by this updated version, that becamea lot more comedic in nature as the minutes ticked by, or turned in hisgrave at the monstrosity this was.It's good that this 3D version was shot in that format and not playingthe cheat sheet by having it done in post production, with some momentsobviously exploiting that format and you'll have a number of swordspointing your way more than once. Otherwise it's the usual depth offield you'll get to enjoy, but alas this version is far from being thedefinitive The Three Musketeers that you've read about, but a verybland action adventure that uses its name and premise only, but lackedany depth to truly live up to the themes it stood for, paying lipservice only about camaraderie and love. The open finale isunsatisfying as it leads directly into a potential sequel that will seesome difficulties in becoming reality given that this one didn't lightup the box office.
gandalfnorth (22 May 2012)
Great Fun
Took the family and everyone enjoyed it. It was great fun with goodaction throughout the movie - no dull sections.The direct made effective use of 3D effects that actually enhanced themovie rather than distracted from it.The costumes will receive an Oscar nod I think.The script was light and entertaining.Performances by Matthew McFadyen and Milla Jovovich were especiallystrong.It was something of a cross between Pirates and Lord of the Rings whenit came to the action.Orlando Bloom still can't play the heavy well. Too bad - it's just nothis thing.Take the family and enjoy it!
ellenlively (22 May 2012)
Amusing, but slightly pointless...
The Three Musketeers is a film I have long awaited. Seriously. I'vebeen following this. Two words: Orlando. Bloom. I was excited to seeit, but did not expect a lot from this movie, so I was notdisappointed. This movie had dark and fuzzy 3D, a confusing andpointless plot, and weird twists. Props to the new kid though. I forgethis name, but I actually liked him. I assumed he would be annoying andruin the movie, but he carried his part well. Also, there were somehilarious parts. This was a fun, crazy, and weird movie You can tellthey had fun making it. It is entertaining, but be prepared to walkaway confused and baffled. Don't expect too much.
edwbur (21 May 2012)
nothing from nothing. is nothing at all
the three musketeers is about, well you probably know what its allabout, its made the same way almost all the time. this movie starsLogan lerman who plays dartagnan, a young, brash, arrogant man whowants to become a musketeer and when he arrives at France just like theWalt Disney three musketeers starring Charlie sheen, kiefer Sutherland,and Chris o Donnell dartagnan runs into three musketeers. athos,porthos, and arameus. three musketeers who have quit as protectors ofFrance, to become a drunk, a somewhat police officer, and a fake wholives off of women. now unlike Disney's three musketeers dartagnan archenemy in the film. the guy with the eye patch, didn't kill his father,but insulted his horse. and dartagnan for some reason threatened tokill him because he did not apologize. then dartagnan is shot in theshoulder. a flesh wound. he chases after him while the guy with the eyepatch rides off on his horse. while dartagnan chases after him he runsinto three musketeers one at a time simultaneously. then once he findsout they are musketeers hes not shocked and if he is he didn't show itvery well. the action sequences where however impressive. great swordfighting scenes. choreographed extremely well. but still they shouldn'trelied on the action so much that they forgot about the storycompletely. also i didn't know that a king of France could replicate afive year old so easily. who would want a king like that runningFrance. not me. but i guess the writers would of liked a king likethat. plus did you know that in the 16 or 1700s there where flyingships. I'm not joking about that. this movie actually put in flyingships. this movie is more of an insult than anything else to the threemusketeers story. Orlando bloom also played in this and i don't knowwhy. after coming of three widely successful movies which would be thepirates of the Caribbean franchise, finally getting out of the willturner character he goes to this. "you just made a big mistake".quoting Vin diesel from fast five. Vin diesel said that in fast five.don't see this movie. its a waste of good money. diffidently don't seeit.
Megan (20 May 2012)
This movie was pretty awesome :)
I will admit, it was a bit cheesy and clichéd, but I was prettyentertained. It wasn't always historically accurate, but come on, it'sjust a movie. From my limited knowledge about the book, it's not thathistorically accurate, either. I've read about Queen Anne and KingLouis and from my knowledge, they were nothing like they were portrayedin the movie or in the book. I actually like the way the movie wasdone, because I never really liked the characters the way they wereportrayed in other movies. And I will admit that I've never actuallyfinished the book. I find it hard to follow Alexandre Dumas-I tried toread The Count of Monte Cristo as well, and never finished it, but Ithoroughly enjoyed the movie, as different as it was from the book.Normally, though, I prefer books to movies, but this is a rare case.But anyhoo, the movie was pretty funny, and there was plenty ofentertaining sword fighting, too :) It was the best version of theThree Musketeers I've ever seen-and I've seen about three differentversions. There was one from the 40s or 50s in black and white that Ienjoyed, but this was much better :)
walter2-1 (20 May 2012)
Another worthwhile-content-free remake
Yes, there are people in this movie that are identified as musketeers,and we get 3 of them by name. However, that is as close to Dumas' TheThree Musketeers as this movie ever comes. This movie has been mademany times which is a testament to the exceptionally good story andengaging characters. Sadly, these elements are completely missing fromthis version. The 1993 film is SO much better it's outrightembarrassing, and not just because every actor is so good in it. It wasbrilliantly told, well cast and wonderfully acted. No danger whatsoeverof that in this version.This version has only the high fantasy church-top aerial fencing sceneto commend it, otherwise, every single critical story line element ismissing. We have zero character development, some fantasyballoon-frigate warfare (maybe they thought Jules Verne wrote theoriginal), and a confused story line that simply makes no sense. 3D?Totally useless, and as expected, did not make up for the otherfailings. I now regard 3D as a stark warning: "we failed utterly withthe writing, so we decided to mindlessly pimp the visuals, watch out"It's depressing enough that Hollywood keeps plundering old movies andstories for "new" releases, but then the witless committee of bad tastegets into the action, and determined to appeal to some non-existentdemographic, destroys and defaces the final result. I'm sure if theycould have somehow gotten a topless car chase into the film, they wouldhave.Why even a five? good question, but to be fair, I did enjoy some of thevisuals, and the costumes were great, I just hated the movie as astory, and never, ever want to see it again.
MBloodT (19 May 2012)
All For Fun
At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version ofThe Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and theswashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun.Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in thefilm. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But inthe end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles toits pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won'tend up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusualperson to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristicaction movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. Thefilm didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. Thedirector just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, CoolDevices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in thesecond act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won'tnotice that it already passes another day.The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent.It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's likeTransformers where the titular characters only appear when there'sdanger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, thetitular characters are not bland.Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does histhing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it.The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personalityto their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't getto see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is asusual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, ChristopheWaltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he'senjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen isthe only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swaggerand seductiveness but a little personality.The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in ResidentEvil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started theseexcessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these thingswill affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enoughbut when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort'sarmy, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300.When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter howviolent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisinglygood. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good.Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff.The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are wellmade. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGIswords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole themebut every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good.Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways.Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with thisadaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos,swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain aclassic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It'sjust a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3Dgimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws thataren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch asan action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now butsomeday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.
Grann-Bach (18 May 2012)
About what you'd expect, possibly slightly better
Following a few minutes of Assassin's Creed footage, this presents aplan intended to start a war between England and France, and only thetitular heroes can stop it. Let's start with what you're probably mostinterested in learning; yes, this is very much a Paul W.S. Andersonfilm(albeit it may be his best... though he still makes mistakes, suchas setting things up that he does not follow through on, pay-off tothings he only introduced seconds before it, etc.), for better or forworse, and yes, it is a fun ride if you are prepared for what it is,and you can live with it playing fast and loose with historicalaccuracy, and how close it is to the source material(it does includeone or two notable things that I'm told are in the novel, and thatwe're familiar with). The action is stronger than any of his others, ifhe still does overuse slow-mo slightly(he goes downright 300 in onesequence, and it isn't anywhere near as good), and the scenes tend toeither end too soon or go on for overly long. There are a few standoutsituations that I won't soon forget. This uses 3D extremely well,second only to Avatar, usually adding to the atmosphere and only a fewtimes jabbing the audience in the face with something(one or two ofthose occurrences could be more effective). In general, the FX areamazing. The sets, costumes and props are gorgeous, as opulent as theyought to be. Dialog is usually bad or mediocre, with one or two cleverlines. The comic relief is not funny, although this can make youchuckle(not exclusively intentionally). Vital to almost any version ofThe Three Musketeers is D'Artagnan, and this one is reasonable. He'snot obnoxious, and he can be charming. Oh, he's flat as a board... allthe characters are(another mainstay of this director). Athos, Porthosand Aramis are among the numerous well-cast actors. Milla is deliciousas the deceiving double-agent Lady Winter, Waltz is spot-on asRichelieu, Mikkelsen is a despicable villain, and Fox as the king doeswell. In fact, the latter has to both be a laughing stock(a pathetic,childish ruler devoid of perspective) and sympathetic(he's an awkwardyoung man in love). He pulls them off, but this really could have donebetter if it didn't try for so much at a time. The plot is excessivelyconvoluted, full of holes, and in the end does not hold up to any kindof scrutiny. I recommend this to fans of Jovovich and her husband. 7/10
ShawnWallace (16 May 2012)
Screen Daily review
With their swords dusted off and old-fashioned swashbuckling adventureclearly in mind, The Three Musketeers make it back to the big screen inthis engagingly colourful and action-packed romp, with director Paul WS Anderson displaying verve and panache in this rousing 3D re-bootingof the much-filmed French classic novel. It is a well-crafted bit ofmainstream entertainment that doesn't disappoint in terms of goodold-fashioned swashbuckling fun. As he displayed in Resident Evil:Afterlife  the most recent of his hit zombie/sci-fi films, which starMilla Jovovich  Anderson has an appreciation and sure touch when itcomes to 3D work, and it does help his delve into a colourful anddynamic movie-version of 17th century Europe as the Musketeers setabout plenty of sword-fights, carousing and general derring-do. TheThree Musketeers is a film that critics will find it easy to sneer at,but it is a well-crafted bit of mainstream entertainment that doesn'tdisappoint in terms of good old-fashioned swashbuckling fun.
bousozoku (15 May 2012)
Enjoyable for all the wrong reasons
Poor Mr. Dumas would probably laugh about this. Someone has taken a bitof literary freedom with his story. It reminds me of Die Schatzinsel, arevised look at Stevenson's Treasure Island.We have the young man some older, wiser, and very cynical men and atleast, one woman trying to tie up all the loose ends of the story.The plot centers around trying to take over the kingdom of France. Ifthat's a spoiler, I guess the book is a spoiler. Perhaps, because ofthis movie, someone will open the book and read the original storywritten by Dumas.The fight scenes are quite good and entertaining, though thefast-slow-fast-slow is annoying. The personal scenes lack chemistry.e.g., as D'Artanyan finishes his sword practice with his father. Hisfather reaches to place his had upon the heart, but D'Artanyan takes astep back. Perhaps, he fears his father? It seemed unfortunate.In fact, the quiet moments are where the movie falters and it isunfortunate since the action scenes are so good.I can say that I like the film and that, seeing the 3D version, it wasnot 3D for the sake of 3D, save one element.I believe that most people will be bored after the initial big fightsequence until the very end where the action is resumed.
David Ferguson (14 May 2012)
And One Not for All
Greetings again from the darkness. The trailer told me all I need toknow, but my life-long interest in all things related to the AlexandreDumas novel had me ignoring my movie gut instincts and heading out tocatch this latest version of the Muskateer saga. Since then, I havebeen telling myself "I told you so".Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson & the Olympians) plays the young, brashD'Artagnian, son of a former Muskateer. Lerman may develop into a fineactor someday, but right now he is as bland on screen as Orlando Bloom,who happens to play rival Duke of Buckingham. Athos, Aramis and Porthosare played, respectively, by Matthew Macfadyen (Pride & Prejudice),Luke Evans (Tamara Drewe) and Ray Stevenson (Volstagg in Thor).The boys are a bit out of sorts after being tricked by double-agentMilady, played by Milla Jovovich, who apparently is really working forthe conniving Cardinal played by Christoph Waltz. Mads Mikkelsen playsRochefort the evil army leader and master swordsman, but somehow evenwith Waltz and Mikkelsen, this film is just lacking in bad guysubstance.Director Paul W.S. Anderson is known best for his Resident Evil filmseries and his love of special effects is on full display here. Therewere scenes that reminded me of Will Smith's Wild Wild West, and othersthat looked like Robert Downey, Jr's Sherlock Holmes. If you love theDumas novel, you just cringed. The key to the Muskateers isswashbuckling and sharp, sarcastic wit surrounding wild and athleticsword play, all performed for an honorable mission.It's not the first movie in which I have disappointed, and it certainlywon't be the last. It's just frustrating because ... I told me so.
siderite (14 May 2012)
Everything in the trailer and not much more
If you would take Pirates of the Caribbean and replace Johnny Depp withMila Jovovich and changed pirates with musketeers you would not get amovie much different from The Three Musketeers. That doesn't mean it isnot fun, but forget any hope of suspension of disbelief. This is eyecandy only, with some occasional reasonable jokes and a lot of pumpedup action.As it is, the film does not cheat, and I guess that is something. Youget what you expect if you see the trailer. Not much else going on,though. No connection to any reality, modern or feudal.Bottom line: best scene is when Mila is pouting for being caught. Watchthe film if you are really bored.
mad-575-391154 (10 May 2012)
clichéd, campy, predictable - and very entertaining!
Paul W.S. Anderson's reboot of the Three Musketeers is one of thosemovies you should see with one expectation only: to be entertainedwithout straining your braincells.It is an enjoyable adventure movie that never takes itself too serious,reminiscent of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.The cast members seem to have enjoyed their parts as they display amellow playfulness, with Orlando Bloom being the exception as he seemsa little over-strained in his role as a bad guy. But even his helplessoveracting can be overlooked in a movie that seems to be veryself-aware about it's ultimate goal - to deliver two hours of mindlessentertainment.Logan Lerman should be positively mentioned, because once you get overhis haircut, he delivers a nice performance as the cocky, younghot-shot D'Artagnan, with a good sense of timing for his (mostlycheesy) onliners and a great agility in the fighting sequences.I thoroughly enjoyed this movie in 3D and look forward to a sequel.Recommended to anyone who appreciates silly entertainment with greatvisuals from time to time. See it in the cinema!
slayerjmk95 (10 May 2012)
A Fun, Action-Packed Tale
There have been numerous adaptations of Alexandre Dumas' tale of TheThree Musketeers, but none as strange or over-the-top as Paul W.S.Anderson's version. Yes, the script may be flawed and clichéd at parts,and sometimes the movie just feels a little dull at parts, but thatdoesn't stop the great, goofy fun that is The Three Musketeers.I've seen quite a few adaptations of the Musketeers, and i have to saythe Disney version with Kiefer Sutherland is the best because itcaptures a serious and interesting story with funny and dynamiccharacters, but when i saw the trailer for this version, i felt as ifthe filmmakers wanted to just spoof the whole idea. Boy, was i wrong;this version was just as good as the Disney version, to me that is,only because it captures that same goofiness and adds more serioussword fights and action, while giving the story a steam-punk twist. Isit perfect? Absolutely not, but it is definitely worth buying on DVD asit's another fun swashbuckling tale that keeps you wanting more and hasno reason to insult your intelligence as it was made to be a fun movie.Don't let the critics keep you from seeing this; just think a mixtureof Pirates of the Caribbean & Sherlock Holmes with a dumbed-down scriptand you get The Three Musketeers 8/10 Stars***
loufalce (10 May 2012)
Enjoyable Nonsense
In the newest version of this often made film, the title three havefallen on hard times, but when a plot is uncovered to plunge France andEngland into war, they get back together to do their patriotic duty.Bearing absolutely no relation to the Dumas novel {except for the namesof the characters} this new version seems to have been made forcontemporary audiences, and combines elements of "Matrix"' "Pirates ofthe Caribbean", "James Bond films, Samurai films and even throws in agood deal of steampunk gadgets and weapons. The story has something todo with a plan for Cardinal Richilieu to seize power and set himself upas a dictator. The cast is OK,with Orlando Bloom as the evilBuckingham, Mila Jojovich as a deadly assassin, and Christof Walz asRichileiu. The German locations could easily pass for early 17 thcentury France and are quite beautiful.There are fine swordfights,improvised weapon systems, secret passageways,a killing chamber, boobytraps, an unbelievable swordfight duel on the roof of Notre Damecathedral and stolen plans from Leonardo Da Vinci's secret vault foraeriel war machines. These are a combination of zeppelins and sailpropelled galleons with at least three decks of cannons andflamethrowers! Even if they are at least 200 years ahead of their time,they are magnificent in design . Their battle over Paris is trulyspectacular. Film also features many funny and quite quotable oneliners. The point of it is that this was designed to be a fun film andif you, the viewer "get it" it will be exactly that. I've never seen anAndreson film, but this one was a blast. Its all non stop action with akeen sense of humor and some spectacular set pieces all in eye popping3D.Definitely not your 8th grade Dumas book report that you probablyfaked by reading a "Classic Illustrated" comic version or "CliffNotes", but its not supposed to be. Just go see it, OK?
Joe Franke (09 May 2012)
Aims High - Reaches about the middle - Well above the bottom (possible spoilers)
First off, I love Dumas' story of The Three Musketeers. I have seenevery version I could lay my hands on - which includes DouglasFairbanks's, Gene Kelly's, Richartd Chamberlain's, Chris O'Donnell /Kiefer Sutherland, The BBC miniseries with Jeremy Brett and severalothers. I have never found an 'ideal' version. By ideal, I don't mean aword-for-word adaptation of the book(s). I just want a movie that getsthe characters right. Let the modern adventures take them where theywill.So it was with some excitement that I heard that Andrew Davies (of BBCPride and Prejudice fame) was hired to write the screenplay. A drama ofthe highest level seemed to be in the making. Then I heard that PaulAnderson was brought in to direct, as was Alex Litvak to 'liven up' thescript. At first I was disappointed, thinking, 'Great, here goesanother classic adaptation down the drain." But, then, I relaxed. Itwasn't going to be the dramatic movie that I had hoped for, but itmight be more fun.And fun The Three Musketeers certainly is. First, the high points. Thepace is snappy, the action is scintilating, the costumes are dazzling(Cardinal's Guard's uniforms were especially good), and the colors arevividly brilliant. The special effects are superb. In short, itcertainly LOOKS like a big-budget blockbuster. The acting was good-to-middling. The good: Ray Stevenson as Porthos. Iwish he had been given more screentime. His Porthos is tall, strong, and a little reckless, withsquinty-eyed, devil-may-care grin. Matthew Macfayden as Athos. I'veseen him before in other films (Pride and Prejudice 2005, Robin Hood,and Little Dorrit) so I knew he would bring some gravity to the role.He certainly did but again I wished for more screen time. He wasprobably the most developed if the three. And, of course, MadsMikkelsen as Rochefort. Mikkelsen strikes just the right note ofmenace. The surprising: (good) Milla Jovovich as Milady. Most people think ofResident Evil, but she can act convincingly (watch The Fourth Kind),and puts in an excellent turn here as milady. (bad) Luke Evans asAramis. He came off as pale and, with the exception of one importantdialogue, uninteresting. (bad) Christoph Waltz as Richelieu. It was nota bad performance (Waltz is capable of great performances - see Waterfor Elephants), but in a movie that relies so much on depiction ofcharacter, the role asked Richelieu to emanate power. Waltz tries hisbest, but is ultimately trapped in a role that offers little dramaticcontrast. (good) Freddie Fox as King Louis XIII. The King plays alarger role in this film than in previous adaptations, and Fox makeswhat could be a weak, watery character quite sympathetic. The indifferent: (indifferent) Orlando Bloom as Buckingham. Nothingreally stood out in Bloom's portrayal. There are other actors who couldhave done just as well. Bloom was simply a box-office attraction.(indifferent) Logan Leman as D'Artagnan. Cocky enough to shatter thescreen, but his American accent seemed out of place in a largelyBritish cast film. (indifferent) Gabriella Wilde as Constance. Mz.Wilde is very pretty, and very convincing, but her Constance came offas snippy and nasty.Now for what many 'purists' are wailing about, and the source of muchtrashing - the plot. For there is one, but it is not overlycomplicated. This movie covers basically the same territory as thefirst half of the book - the story of the Queen's diamonds. Not to blowanything, but (SPOILERS!!) the movie ends right as Buckingham issetting sail for France - presumably to set siege to La Rochelle. So,there are the standard fights with the Cardinal's Guards, the theft ofjewels, a plot by the Cardinal, and the Musketeers pressed into serviceto save the Queen. All pretty entertaining, and well done IMO, withthis one draw-back that sticks with me every time I've watched thisfilm: despite so much traveling, there is very little sense of thedistance covered. The trip to Calais is accomplished by simply changingscenes; the journey from Calais to England, almost ditto. Clearly,Litvak and Anderson felt that the drama of the trip to Calais could bedispensed with (the trip is a major part of most adaptations). While Iappreciate the desire to be different, I felt a little cheated here.Perhaps Anderson thought that another action sequence would unbalancethe film. Given the amount of other action sequences (all excellentlyscripted), he was probably right.I know what you're thinking: BUT AIRSHIPS??!! Well, sure, why not!Dumas had a great sense of the fantastic (read the unedited MonteCristo). Saying he would have approved or not is beside the point; theinclusion of a fantastical element is very much in the Dumas spirit.Credit to Anderson and Litvak for not just including the airships to becool (though that was obviously a primary reason), but making themimportant to the story. In addition to the above, there is very littleblood or sex. If you like your Musketeers raw and uncensored, you willbe disappointed. Anderson did a fine job directing, and Paul Haslingergot into his best Hans Zimmer imitation with the soundtrack (mixingbits of Pirates of the Caribbean with shades of Sherlock Holmes). If you're a book purist, don't even bother with this one. Just hug yourRichard Chamberlain versions tight, and hope for Blu-ray. If you like good action with crazy sword-fights, some funny dialogueand aren't worried by things like 'drama' and 'character' and just wantto have a good time, this new set of Musketeers delivers in spades. Andit is set up for a sequel, so there is probably more to come - love itor hate it.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20